Bill Gates and the New Malthusians

To commemorate the 100th anniversary of the first eugenics conference, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation put on a family planning conference this summer.

The conference, which began on 11 July and was co-hosted by the UK Department for International Development, included among its coalition partners such organizations as Planned Parenthood, Marie Stopes International, and the United Nations Populations Fund (UNFPA).

From Hard Eugenics to Soft Eugenics

The original conference that Bill Gates wished to commemorate was titled The First International Eugenics Congress. It was convened in London from 24-29 July, 1912, and was presided over by Leonard Darwin, the son of Charles Darwin. The conference was dedicated to Charles Darwin’s half-cousin Francis Galton (1822–1911). Galton invented the term Eugenics to describe his theory that man could be perfected through strategic breeding. His ideas that certain races are genetically superior to other races had a profound impact on later Nazi theorists.

The 1912 conference included an exhibit by the American Breeders’ Association, whose former president, Harry Laughlin, proposed to eradicate the “inferior” members of society through compulsory sterilization. The conference featured a presentation from Bleeker van Wagenen, who gave a report on the progress of sterilization laws in the United States and advocated compulsory sterilization as a means for improving the human gene pool.

Early 20th century Eugenics theory was often accompanied by the notion that economics can be improved by decreasing the surplus population. Such ideas were based on the theories of Thomas Malthus (1766 –1834) who suggested that the poor were draining the world’s recourses. One of Malthus’s solutions for reducing the surplus population was to introduce policies specifically designed to bring death to large numbers of peasants. For example, he encouraged poor people to move near swamps, because he knew that they would catch diseases there and begin dying off.

The conference that the Gates Foundation put on to commemorate The First International Eugenics Congress included no calls for forced sterilization, but Bill and Malinda Gates did pledge hundreds of millions of dollars to improve access to contraception in the developing world. Following in the footsteps of early 20th century social engineering theory, they echoed Malthus by suggesting that we have an economic responsibility to ensure that there are fewer people. Wendy Wright has rightly called this the “latest effort to blame children for poverty and women’s troubles.”

Bill Gates is quick to repudiate his dependence on Malthus. Inan interview with PBS, he told Moyers that “The one issue that really grabbed me as urgent were issues related to population” and he shared how originally he “thought that the Malthusian principles applied at least in the developing countries.” Gates went on to say how he came to understand that “essentially Malthus was wrong” and that alternatives to Malthus’s doomsday scenarios included raising wealth, improving health and educating women.

But we should not be too quick to assume that Bill and Melinda Gates have completely abandoned their earlier Malthusian framework. On the contrary, Mr and Mrs Gates have both frequently drawn attention to the economic ramifications of there being too many people. This was made explicit by Melinda Gates in 2011 when she commented that “Government leaders…are now beginning to understand that providing access to contraceptives is a cost-effective way to foster economic growth…”

So what exactly is the relation between contraception and economic growth? The connection is simple: fewer people = more resources. This may not be the hard eugenics of Malthus, but it certainly involves what Andressen Blom and James Bell have appropriately termed “soft negative eugenics.” In an article for The American Thinker last June, Blom and Bell define soft eugenics as follows:

“for economic reasons governments should use taxpayer dollars to underwrite the decisions of citizens to pursue recreational sexual activity. The underlying economic assumption is that the prospective children of the poor citizens likely to utilize such government-funded programs would be likely to hamper economic growth if they are born.”

Decreasing the Surplus Population

This is not the first time that Bill and Malinda Gates have ventured into population control. At the Technology, Entertainment and Design 2010 Conference, Bill Gates gave a talk in which he suggested that the solution to global warming is to have fewer people.

This is part of a new groundswell of interest in population control which posits a direct relationship between global warming and the amount of people on the earth. The Microsoft founder reduced our planet’s problem to a simple equation: CO2=P x S x E x C CO2(total population-emitted CO2 per year) = P (people) x S (services per person) x E (average energy per service) x C (average CO2 emitted per unit of energy).

The goal, Gates said, was to “get this down to zero.” Referring to P(eople) specifically, he said, “Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, healthcare, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.”

That’s right. Rather than leading to more life, which was the original purpose of vaccines and healthcare, their great advantage in Gates’ mind is that they can lead to fewer people. While this is obviously true when it comes to contraception, it is hard to understand how vaccination is specifically related to a decrease in the population. (But hold onto that thought.)

The Gates Foundation are certainly doing all they can to decrease what it sees as surplus population. In May of this year, they gave a grant of $100,000 to researchers at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill to develop a new type of ultrasound which has been described as a “non-invasive, reversible form of birth control for men.” Already tested on animals, it would make a man infertile for up to six months. Nine other grants were given to other scientists attempting to create new forms of contraception.

Forced Sterilization

One of the coalition partners in last month’s conference was Planned Parenthood, whose founder Margaret Sanger hoped to “assist the race towards the elimination of the unfit.” Similarly, Marie Stopes International, who also had a prominent presence at the conference, was started by a woman who advocated for “the sterilization of those totally unfit for parenthood [to be] made an immediate possibility, indeed made compulsory.” (To read more about forced sterilization in the 20th century, see my article ‘Social Engineering and the Dark Side of American Liberalism.’)

But while these organizations previously supported forced sterilization, surely no one in the West still thinks that the poor and ‘feeble minded’ ought to be subjected to compulsory sterilization, right? Well, not so fast. Consider the following facts:

The Gates Foundation has partnered with the United Nations Populations Fund (UNFPA) which also supports China’s one-child-only policy and frequently appeals to global warming as a reason to curb the human population.

The London conference that the Gates Foundation put on last month was co-hosted by the UK’s Department for International Development, which has given aid money to India despite warnings that it would be used to forcibly sterilize poor women. (See ‘UK aid helps to fund forced sterilisation of India’s poor.)

In its autumn 2009 edition (Issue 10), Salvo magazine reported that the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) has come up with a new way to reduce poverty: reduce poor people. The campaign, which has been supported by Bill Gates, does so by supporting and funding coercive sterilization, contraception and abortion campaigns.

The Hidden Truth About Vaccines and Forced Sterilization

Rather than leading to more life, which was the original purpose of vaccines and healthcare, their great advantage in Gates’ mind (at least according to his remarks at the Technology, Entertainment and Design 2010 Conference) is that they can lead to fewer people. While this is obviously true when it comes to contraception, it is hard to understand how vaccines are specifically related to a decrease in the population.

The connection between vaccines and population control becomes clearer if we consider an event that occurred in the early 1990’s. The World Health Organization, working under the control of the UN, launched a campaign to vaccinate millions of people in Nicaragua, Mexico and the Philippines against tetanus. The project was supported by the Rockefeller Foundation, the World Bank, the UN Development Programme, and the US’s National Institutes of Health.

Tetanus is a potentially lethal infection caused by external wounds or cuts from things like rusty nails. There is nothing unusual in tetanus inoculations, which are routine in the Western World. But there was something that didn’t quite add up about these particular vaccinations.

For one thing, the WHO was choosing to only vaccinate females. For another thing, the girls they chose to vaccinate are primarily those between the ages of 15 and 45 (in Nicaragua the age range was 12-49.)

It wasn’t just disease experts who noticed that something was amiss. After all, it doesn’t take a great deal of intelligence to know that men and boys are more prone to wounds from cuts and rusty nails than ladies. So why was the WHO only choosing to vaccinate girls of child-bearing age?

To make matters more suspicious, the vaccination protocols were calling for multiple injections — three within three months and a total of five altogether. However, tetanus vaccinations provide protection for ten years or more, so why this call for multiple inoculations?

These were the questions that Comite Pro Vida de Mexico, a Roman Catholic lay organization, began asking and why they decided to have some vaccine samples tested.

The tests revealed that the tetanus vaccine contained human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG). hCG is a natural hormone that is secreted during the initial stages of pregnancy. When this hormone is combined with the tetanus toxoid carrier, it tricks the body into thinking that hCG is an invading enemy, with the result that a woman’s body begins producing anti-hCG antibodies, making it impossible for her to ever maintain a pregnancy.

After a number of labs exposed that the vaccine was really a life-time birth control shot, WHO officials tried to keep things quiet and continued administering the anti-fertility injections. It was only after the courts intervened that the WHO was forced to stop administering the vaccine. Unfortunately, by then the damage had already been done and thousands of girls in Nicaragua, Mexico and the Philippines had been rendered permanently infertile. The scandal made it all the way up to the Philippines Supreme Court. To quote from an article on Lifesite news,

LifeSiteNews.com reported that in 1995, the Catholic Women’s League of the Philippines won a court order halting a UNICEF anti-tetanus program because the vaccine had been laced with B-hCG, which when given in a vaccine permanently causes women to be unable to sustain a pregnancy. The Supreme Court of the Philippines found the surreptitious sterilization program had already vaccinated three million women, aged 12 to 45. B-hCG-laced vaccine was also found in at least four other developing countries.

Was the 1990s tetanus scandal simply a medical blunder? Hardly! For 20 years prior to the incident, WHO researchers had been actively involved in creating anti-fertility vaccines utilizing hCG tied to tetanus toxoid as a carrier. This was publically documented in medical journals from the 70s through to the 90s.

What could possibly have motivated the World Health Organization to knowingly, but covertly, sterilize thousands of women in third world countries? While we do not have sufficient information to answer this question for definite, the answer could have something to do with the fact that population control is once again a growing public concern among the world’s elite. Consider that

Population control seems to be the pet topic among those men who control much of the world’s wealth. Not only Bill Gates but also Warren Buffett and Ted Turner have all spoken publically in favour of drastically reducing the human species, and supported programs designed to eliminate the excess in babies. For example, in 1996, Ted Turner stated that, “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”

In an interview with the New York Times in 2009, Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg alluded to the fact that abortion is all about getting rid of certain types of people that we do not want around: “Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

Echoing comments made by the Optimum Population Trust in 2007, The London School of Economics suggested in 2009 that the best way to combat global warming is to reduce the surplus population through contraception and abortion. Their logic is simple: more people = more polluters.

A 2007 report, written by specialist Professor Barry Walters for the Australian medical journal, called for couples with more than two children to be charged a lifelong tax to offset their extra offspring’s carbon dioxide emissions. Parents would be charged $5,000 a head for every child after their second, and an annual tax of up to $800.

In a 1981 interview, Thomas Ferguson of the United States Department Office of Population Affairs, commented that “we must reduce population levels. Either governments do it our way, through nice clean methods, or they will get the kinds of mess that we have in El Salvador, or in Iran or in Beirut. Population is a political problem. Once population is out of control, it requires authoritarian government, even fascism, to reduce it…”

College professors and leaders frequently cite the Georgia Guidestones to in arguing that that we should “maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.” To achieve that, the human population would have to be thinned by 90%.

The Anglo-Dutch financial empire has been and still is committed to reducing the world’s population from the present 6.7 billion, to under 2 billion persons. This has been stated repeatedly in the post-war period by such leading spokesmen as Lord Bertrand Russell, Julian Huxley, and World Wildlife Fund founders Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands and the still-living Prince Philip, who has reiterated many times his desire to see the human population thinned.

Robert McNamara of the World Bank has said, “Excessive population growth is the greatest single obstacle to the economic and social advancement of most of the societies in the developing world.”

An initiative for the United Nations ECO-92 Earth Charter reads, “The present vast overpopulation, now far beyond the world carrying capacity, cannot be answered by future reductions in the birth rate due to contraception, sterilization and abortion, but must be met in the present by the reduction of numbers presently existing. This must be done by whatever means necessary.”

Dr. Henry Kissinger has said “World population needs to be decreased by 50%.”

Friends of the Earth founder, David Brower, has stated, “That’s the first thing to do, start controlling the population in affluent white America, where a child born to a white American will use about fifty times the resources of a child born in the black ghetto.” “Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license…. All potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”

President Obama’s top science and technology advisor, John P. Holdren, has advocated the possibility of a “planetary regime” that would use a “global police force” to enforce totalitarian measures of population control, including forced abortions, mass sterilization programs conducted via the food and water supply, as well as mandatory bodily implants that would prevent couples from having children.

WRITE: To your MP and ask your MP to protest to the Secretary of State for International Development about the way that Government money was used last month to commemorate the legacy of 20th century Eugenics. Your MP’s address is House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA. If you do not know who your MP is or wish to email your MP instead, click here to go direct to the UK Parliament’s list of MPs.

PRAY: That the Lord will continue to expose the evil being promoted by family planners and population control advocates. Pray that the plans of Bill and Melinda Gates will be channelled towards life rather than death. Pray that legislators overseas will become alert to the evil enclosed in the Trojan Horses of aid from the Gates Foundation and the UK Government. Pray that God will grant Andrew Mitchell a spirit of repentance or remove him and that the UK’s pro-abortion policy will not stand.

Andrew

There have been reports coming out of Africa that children are being vaccinated at gun point, you would have to be complete idiot to believe this is being done for for the benefit of the child in the face of the call for population control from the ruling elite and their lackeys.

The elites in poor countries use population control against the poor and ethnic minorities – just as we do in this country. Our own ‘family planning’ programmes in the inner ciities are aimed at curbing the numbers of poor and non-whites; they also justify reproductive programmes in poor countries. As I note in ‘By Their Fruits: Eugenics, Population Control, and the Abortion Campaign’ (2008) in a welfare state, the poor are expensive.

Please have alook at NickBostrom.com, a leading advocate of transhumanism an advance on genetics and bioethics. America along with Oxford are well advanced on transhumanism and DNA interferences. Thomas Horn writes informatively on these things. Horror story, thanks for info. Joy

We are told that in the last days ‘Evil men and imposters will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived!’ (2 Timothy 3:13). They will all appear at the Great White Throne Judgement and be lost forever if they don’t repent!

As I understand it the Illuminati, Bilderbergers and other one world govt. groups believe that the maximum population the world can sustain is 4 billion. Thsat represents a reduction of 3 billion. How? Through wars, disease, abortions, family planning, sterilisation, etc.

Davy Stephenson

Look no further than the United Nations own white paper Agenda 21 and what is happening as we speak, it has been planed in advance since its birth in 1939, their money laundering outfit in a neutral position within the BIS is being ignored by all governance worldwide, certain elements from within want apiece of what will eventually left.

Praying in this instance will not suffice, caring will, caring for our whole in such a way as the reserves are shared out equally, not 80% going to 20%.

For our labour do not except the imaginary but the physical, put your own shoulders to the wheel of your making, not taking a free ride in someone else’s cart.

In our hearts we all know what’s right.

Richard

Sorry, I just don’t see what the problem is? You use emotive words like “the poor” but the reality is Malthus was quite right that those who don’t contribute to the wealth of society are a drain on its resources. People only have a fundamental right to have numerous children when they are able to provide for them and not expect the rest of society to meet the cost of their irresponsible and indiscrimate breeding.
As for the claim in the preceding comment that family planning in the UK is directed at “the poor and non whites”, well I’d prefer it to be directed at everyone because I think its irresponsible for anyone to have more than two children but even so, the fact is that non white birth rates in the UK far outstrip those of the indigineous population and as for the so called “poor” why should I have to pay for people on benefits indiscriminately having children. Having children is only a right when if someone takes full responsibilty for the cost of them. There’s nothing anti Christian about recognising that resources in the UK are limited and that population size directly correlates to that limitation.

So bleak. And just why should other people’s working children pay your old-age pension? We need population growth and the Bible said ‘go forth and multiply’. Nowhere in the word of God does he say, ‘Hang on a minute, there’s too many of you!’

Richard

Its not bleak at all, its common sense with which I’m sure 99% of Christians would agree and when I say that I’m not talking about the liberals or modernists but about conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists, amongst which latter I include myself.. Howevert in all my years as a Protestant fundamentalist involved with what some would call the “Christian right” I have never heard anyone expound the view you do. It’s nonsense!
You also ask why should other people’s working children fund my old age pension? Two points in reply.
One, I note you use the word “working children”? So even you admit that its necessary for some people to work even though you apparently defend the right of those who don’t work to breed indiscriminately or to breed beyond their personal abilty to totally fund the care of their children.
Two, you make it sound like my old age pension when I get it will be a handout paid only because of the charitable philanthropy of others?The reality is that I’ve worked all my life from the age of 15 and paid taxes all my life so I suggest that when I do eventually draw my old age pension I will simply be getting back a small proportion of what I’ve paid into the system. Much of the rest has gone and continues to go to fund the benefits of both those who have never worked but still breed like rabbits and the benefits of those who have lately come to this country having paid nothing in to the system but who are still able to enjoy the same benefits as those British national who have paid into the system all their lives.
We don’t need populations growth, we need population control. Oh it’s easy to make a smart comment that
“Nowhere in the word of God does he say, ‘Hang on a minute, there’s too many of you!’. We can all be glib about what God doesn’t say and the fact is he doesn’t say “breed indiscriminately and leave it to other people to fund the raising of your children.”

You have missed the point, old chap. This article is not about Britain at all. The expression ‘Department of Overseas Development’ should have given the game away. It is about the Gates Foundation’s and the UK’s machinations in the developing world, where there is no social security and people work very hard and view their children as a blessing and an asset, not as mouths to feed from state handouts.
But on the subject of pensions in the UK, you seem to be under the illusion that there is some fund into which you have been paying all your working life. I’m sorry to disappoint you. There is no government pension fund. It is a pay-as-you-go system, which is in essence ‘a hand-out’. This working generation pays the pensions of the previous one. A future generation will pay the pensions of the present. That works fine while the population is growing, but when it stagnates or contracts you hit funding problems. Our population is ageing so every ten people in work are funding an relentlessly every-increasing number of old-age pensioners. That is why there is all this fuss, which you cannot have missed, about ‘pension shortfall’ and increasing the age at which people may retire.
Lastly, even given that our article was not about Britain, I really don’t like dehumanising those made in the image of God by the use of expressions such as ‘breed like rabbits’.

Keith Frobisher

Earlier in life I was an agriculturalist and was involved in a breeding program to produce bull calves with the very best genetic characteristics to pass on to their progeny. To produce bull calves of this calibre we bought in cows with the very best genetics that would pass on their genes, along with the bull’s, to their calves. The resulting cows had the best chance to have the best physiques, the highest yielding milk lactations with the best butter fat content. The bull calves were reared and sold to the Milk Marketing Board for use at their AI (artificial insemination) centres all over the country and to other buyers. One could call this process “Animal Eugenics”. If one believes in Darwinian Evolution and Natural Selection then human beings are mere animals and it would be quite wrong not to pursue the betterment of the human gene pool by Human Selection and breeding to help the process of Natural Selection along.
One would have thought that the Nazi program would have killed off the idea of eugenics once and for all but “History teaches us that history teaches us nothing”. As politicians and academics forsake Christian values and the secularists take control one wonders where it will all end. Thank God He is still on the throne and man cannot thwart His ultimate purposes for mankind. Perhaps all this is a further sign that we are living close to the Lord’s Return.

Peter Fabian

An interesting but rather one sided perspective on a controversial issue. Of course we need to be mindful as politicians and those in power forsake Christian values but if you consider issues of maternal and child health at a grass roots level there is a bigger and potentially more positive picture relating to contraception than the one painted here. Contraception has an important contribution to make to individual and family health and it is important for Christians to be involved directly in providing effective sexual and reproductive health programmes. The reason the debate is steered by organisations whose values we would perhaps question is because we have stood silently by or simply condemned from the sidelines without really understanding the issues.

The problem is, contraception and abortion go hand-in-hand for the anti-family activists. My own view on contraception is that each method (except for Billings) is fraught with theological difficulty. Sterilisation is mutliation of the body, the pill is a poison (we take medicines because we are ill – what is wrong with a woman such that has to take a contraceptive pill?), the coil is an intrusion and an abortifacient, and the condom violates the ‘one flesh’ principle (the movie ‘The Naked Gun’ had a wonderful spoof on ‘safe sex’ with both characters clad in full-length condoms). Artificial contraceptives encourage fornication and undermine morality. It is almost ‘job done’ on that front in the West, so Africa and Asia are the new targets. They also encourage an anti-child attitude – in the West we are not even replacing our population (except the Muslims). Increased contraceptive use also leads to increased demand for abortion. Again, Africa and Asia are plump markets for the abortionists. Finally, I see using artificial contraceptives as an insult to those couples who would dearly love to be blessed with children, but see themselves as trying in vain. Apart from that, it’s just fine!

Peter Fabian

‘Artificial contraceptives encourage fornication and undermine morality’ mmmmm not sure where you will find evidence to back this up and even if you do there are as many studies to say that it doesn’t. It seems to be a common view held by Christians who confuse provision of information with promotion of immorality. I am interested to know how the condom violates the ‘one flesh’ principle and I know conservative evangelical Christian medical experts in reproductive health who would say the coil is not an abortifacient. It is probably fair to say that contraception and abortion go hand in hand in some contexts. Significantly, it is certainly true that in some cultures abortion is used as contraception and that appropriate contraceptives would reduce the incidence of this. The theology of harm reduction is an interesting topic and controversial to some. As Christians we need to come to a proper understanding of the issues and be able to present a more helpful and constructive alternative for people. Simply condemning those we disagree with based to some extent on our own misunderstandings and prejudice is never going to win anyone or change anything. I suppose it all depends on whether one wants to win an argument or win hearts and minds. The bible is not black and white on all these issues and there are grey areas and so we do need grace and wisdom from above.

Just watch the Naked Gun clip to see why you can’t be one flesh through a sheet of rubber, Peter. As for the coil, why should a woman have a piece of metal shoved up her? Contraceptives never reduce abortion, as the abortionists themselves admit! In Britain we are in the middle of an epidemic of teenage STD’s and infertility brought about by the promotion of condoms and ‘safer sex’ and you say you cannot find evidence that throwing contraceptives at people encourages fornication and undermines morality? We have not condemned anyone, but we have put forward the uncomfortable facts. The most helpful thing Christians can do IMHO is stand full-square on the word of God and remind people that marriage is a holy institution and that children are a blessing not a curse.

Peter Fabian

This brief exchange of thoughts has thrown up a whole range of very interesting but sensitive issues which are probably too complicated to work through in a forum like this. But I think we can agree on a number of things. Yes, there is an epidemic of STD’s and abortion; Yes, effective well balanced sex and relationship education in our churches and in our schools is hard to find. Yes, contraception is a tricky issue but for the overwhelming majority of Christians contraception is not a problem. The Lambeth Conference accepted it in 1930 and even large numbers of Roman Catholics have accepted it. Most evangelicals would advise wisdom and careful consideration on this issue rather than a hard and fast ruling. On the issue of the the promotion of condoms and safer sex I would like to make two points. Condoms and safer sex if applied would actually reduce STD’s and unwanted pregnancy. The message has not got through and this is largely because there has been a focus on these two aspects of sex education with inadequate time or consideration given to relationships, delay of sexual debut and abstinence. Christians have retreated from talking about this issue so is it any wonder that Brook and FPA have stepped into the void. When talking to young people about sex and relationships in a non church setting they need to be given all the options. They are certainly not all going to follow the Christian mandate. Secondly the epidemic of STIs does not prove condoms promote immorality because without these messages the situation may have been even worse and there is no way of proving it one way or the other. I am not trying to defend the current situation but I think that Christians need to be very careful in how they communicate on these issues and must not fall into the trap of confusing prejudice and truth. I am also concerned at how such a strong link is made between contraception and abortion as doing so dilutes the enormous moral wrong of the latter. In the context of the blog that started this discussion I am well aware that eugenics has influenced thinking in a way that has led to some truly horrible nightmare scenarios such as the Holocaust. But this page seems to be in danger of linking, eugenics, contraception, abortion, population control, anti family, anti marriage in a confusing and unhelpful way that does not take us anywhere except into the world of conspiracies. In the context of Africa I am sure you have first hand experience so you will no doubt be aware that for many women they don’t have control of their own bodies and have little say on the if and when they have children. Yes it’s true that children are seen as a blessing but having them often puts the mothers health in danger and family resources under huge pressure to the extent that everyone goes hungry. Contraception is not just anti family etc and it is unhelpful to suggest it is. Christian Voice is right to bring these issues to our attention and it is great to have forums like this but I would like to urge that great care is taken on some of these difficult issues. The world pretty much ignores what Christians have to say on sex and relationships yet we have the book of life with the makers instructions. We need to be careful how we represent our Maker.

The other side link these things in spectacular fashion, Peter. The evidence shows that more contraception = more sex = more illicit sex = more abortions + more STD’s = more infertility.
Malcolm Potts, M.D., former medical director of the International Planned Parenthood Federation, said in 1973: “As people turn to contraception, there will be a rise, not a fall, in the abortion rate.”[More on this here]
British Abortionist Judith Bury, Brook Advisory Centres, 1981: “…women…have come to request [abortions] when contraception fails. There is overwhelming evidence that, contrary to what you might expect, the provision [availability] of contraception leads to an increase in the abortion rate.”
Finally, from my first-hand experience, the idea that women in Africa are en masse downtrodden and have no control over their own bodies is in equal measure divisive and absurd, ignoring the complex dynamics in marital relationships.

Peter Fabian

I will take a closer look at your ‘evidence’ but in the meantime what do you think is a sensible, practical and realistic way forward here then? Are you suggesting that all contraception is wrong in all cases and that everyone should only use the Billings method. How would you propose to reduce the epidemic of STI’s and abortions? Given that we live in a fallen world let’s assume for the moment that not everyone is going to repent and start abstaining overnight. By the way my last note never suggested that women in Africa or anywhere else were downtrodden en masse although there are huge inequalities and gender is another big issue which I suggest we leave for another time.

janet

I suppose it makes sense after reading the article above why our governments are so pro Homosexual.
The more gays we have ,the less procreation we have.
Its one way of controling the increasing population.

Rox

But we want a stock of more young people to pay our pensions. The best way is probably to encourage young foreigners to come and work here, but encourage them to go back home before the time comes for their own pensions, with no pension rights transferable to another country like English people enjoy when they retire to Spain .

Rox

Well, to be honest, I suppose you have a choice in practice between indigenous (or Irish) Roman Catholics, and Polish Roman Catholics who are allowed to stay on (because I’m not sure anybody can stop them staying if they want to). It might be illegal for me to suggest which group is likely to benefit our society more.

As to “encouraging” protestant Christians to have more children, I’m not sure how you would do that. Or indeed atheists or Muslims (who can contribute to pensions just as much as anybody else).

You also seem to be assuming that the children of Christians will always be Christians, which of course is not the case, but it doesn’t matter when paying pensions is at stake. What does matter is paying taxes and not receiving too many benefits, included pensions, so your understandable personal preference for native Christians doesn’t really fit the bill, actually. If they just go on having more and more children with every generation, it would be like a chain letter, and of course the country would run out of resources of all kinds.

Davy Stephenson

Firstly let’s look at how the Gates’s got their fortune and how the environment has been effected in making this possible, IE the less fortunate and the cheap tricks used by such corporations in order of making more money from our whole for less.
Then let’s look at technology today which could prevent malformations of life a thing of the past very easyily and cheaply without the men with the guns, there is a human illness in our midst that if left unchecked will destroy evolution faster than any meteor strike.
Many of our problems lie with who owns and prints money itself, not the route of all evil but evils main weapon in the wrong hands, money has become more important than a good life itself.

As a man from the land I have a better understanding of true nature and my own skills with which to survive without an alternative proletarian to prop me up a soul being used in the name of growth for the corporate their, now trying to steal my future genetically right to life.

Skills is the key to our waste of life, a knowledge that will destroy ignorance every time. Without these concepts one simply covers over our ignorance. The one tool or tools exists that can help accomplish this straight are own hands. It is dime curiosity and instinct to ask and question, which should be kept alive not curtailed by the unscrupulous ruling class wanting rid of those Jo longer profitable to them.

Our future lies in the things ee create, not destroy, as a species if we cease to use these natural instincts we become lethargic and lady and easily controllable by the technology that is taking away our thinking processes.

The very technology the Gates are selling us will ultimately remove us with non thinking machines.

A video worth watching is Human Farming.

All we need to do is demand something physical for our labours and in a peaceful non compliance, ignore the imaginary money that the gates are using to procrasinate towards the population with.

That physical energy they store away belongs to the whole, resources and all and its about time they handed it back so that the whole can have a better existence rather living in poverty created by legal slavery.

RCCG, Bury

My worry here is the deception, where will it lead if people start opposing their intervention? How much force will they resort to using? And how much deception will they employ ? If they already used everyday necessities such as food and water in some parts of the world, surely considerations will be made for global levels. And guess what the target is likely to be? The beta buys and everyday values which is the mainstay for a large number of the population.

RW

Some thoughts:
1) God said “Go forth and multiply” at a particular (early) time in human history. We can’t assume that He says the same in 2012.

2) Contraception does not have to mean blaming children and avoiding or undervaluing them. The aims behind contraception and reducing population growth are not automatically “… to blame children for poverty and women’s troubles”. This is too simplistic a view. Contraception may be sought to ensure those children already born are given the best opportunities, health and care. In many places women have no control over how many children they have. This means families cannot feed and care for them enough – surely God doesn’t desire this situation? And secondly, when women are unable to control the number of children they have, and how frequently, then they risk illnesses and death due to pregnancy-related illnesses and complications. This in turn deprives children and families of their mothers, either through death or through her serious illness. “Pregnancy and childbirth complications are among the leading causes of death among women living in developing countries” (See: http://edition.cnn.com/2011/11/01/health/multiple-pregnancies-mother/index.html ).

3) The use of vaccinations. While you cite many organisations who have done awful things in the past, this does not mean that they are operating the same way today. The case of WHO secretly sterilising women in the 90s is shocking. But, this doesn’t mean that this is what they’re referring to now. Suggesting that vaccinations could lead to reduced population is possible by a more indirect route: While they may still be used wrongly and forcibly, the role of vaccines can be positive – when more people stay healthy, parents realise that they don’t have to have so many children in order for a few to survive. This has been the lesson for years in History and Geography classes, that better health and survival rates may have led to smaller populations over time.

Families and children are a gift from God. But if we are to be good parents, guardians and communities, then surely we need to make sure the children we have are wanted, loved, cared for, and have the food, healthcare and provision they need to live life to the full. This may mean choosing to limit the number of children a family has, hence the need for contraception.

Yes, just because God told our first parents to be fruitful and multiply does not automatically mean the same applies for us. He told Noah to build an ark, but it does not necessarily follow that I am required to build an ark. However, when one looks at the theological context, it becomes clear that when this command was given to Adam and Eve, they were types of the human race as a whole. God wasn’t addressing them only, but all of their descendants. There are good historical and theological reasons for thinking this, which I can expand upon if you would like.

I agree that contraception in itself does not necessarily entail blaming children for poverty and women’s troubles. But when you factor in the whole context and actual statements made by Bill and Melinda Gates and those associated with their foundation, it becomes clear that this is in fact the subtext to what they are saying. If they were merely offering contraception and nothing else, then our critique would be different; however, there is an entire ideology behind the population control movement which blames women’s troubles on children. They are the ones being simplistic, not us. It is simplistic because it ignores so many other factors.

With regard to your point about vaccinations, we do agree that vaccinations can be positive and nothing we wrote should be taken to imply otherwise. However, just to put things into perspective, the notion that child deaths are caused primarily by preventable diseases is just plain false. The majority of child deaths from disease are caused by dirty water and insect bites (mostly mosquito). If the Gates Foundation and the WHO really wanted to save children it would make far more sense to stop investing in vaccinations and invest instead in water purification, sewage treatment, and window screens/ mosquito netting in developing countries. This is where the majority of childhood deaths could be stopped.

Martin Budd

The section “The Hidden Truth About Vaccination and Enforced Sterilization” relays a ubiquitous report that women in Nicaragua, Philippines, Mexico were deceived into becoming infertile by a vaccine purporting to be merely an anti-tetanus vaccine. There are two vaccines here which people have confused: one containing HCG (human chorionic gonadotrophin) and a protein carrier based on the tetanus vaccine was developed as an anti-fertility vaccine, but not deployed beyond tests..The other vaccine was a straightforward anti-tetanus vaccine which was given to women in these countries because they – and their babies – were susceptible to tetanus after giving birth..Suspicion arose that the women who were given the tetanus vaccine were actually being given an anti-fertility injection and the consequent protests led to this story. There is however no evidence of vaccines being deceptively “laced” with anti-fertility HCG, nor of women being given the anti-fertility injections against their will. In any case the anti-fertility injections only last about two years. See http://www.who.int/vaccines-documents/DocsPDF/www9532.pdf page 60, for the WHO version of events.

Mike lampard

Looking at some of the comments on this article, i have not seen anything that is adressing the original darwinian principle, embraced by Nazism of only letting the fit and healthy survive and the rest can simply go to the wall. I see plenty of comments about the rights and wrongs of population control and irresponsible breeding, all of which have a degree of logic in their expression. However, it is the connection between Darwin, nazism and the issue of ‘who controls?’ Thgis relates to Nazism in that the Nazis usurped the role of countries they invaded and imposed their own will on such nations irrespective of any morality or ethics. If we allow this logic to take off again this time under the heading: population control the question still remains: ‘#who will exercise control?’ Looking at the integrity of all of our national and international leaders, it is clear that not one of them have the integrity to exercise this ‘control’ with any degree of fairness or justice. If we ignore such issues of morality, fairness or justice then we return to the Nazis who were initially very effective at genocide, and were well able to dispense with any morality at all. That is what we are looking at with this whole issue of imposed population control. That is what we areto face!

JT

The earth will suffer global warming, but it will not be due to CO2 (or the CO2 shield), it will be due to the sun getting 7 times hotter, in the Tribulation. Time is short. Jesus is coming back. There will be a judgement. Those guilty of anything like sterilizing millions of women surreptitiously, if that is the case, will bear the penalty for their rejection of Christ and their sin.

[…] According to Christian Voice, a ministry that analyzes current events and acts on Scriptural instructions for “a better way, God’s way,” the 1912 event promoted the “notion that economics can be improved by decreasing the surplus population,” based on the theories of Thomas Malthus. […]

[…] According to Christian Voice, a ministry that analyzes current events and acts on Scriptural instructions for “a better way, God’s way,” the 1912 event promoted the “notion that economics can be improved by decreasing the surplus population,” based on the theories of Thomas Malthus. […]

[…] According to Christian Voice, a ministry that analyzes current events and acts on Scriptural instructions for “a better way, God’s way,” the 1912 event promoted the “notion that economics can be improved by decreasing the surplus population,” based on the theories of Thomas Malthus. […]

[…] According to Christian Voice, a ministry that analyzes current events and acts on Scriptural instructions for “a better way, God’s way,” the 1912 event promoted the “notion that economics can be improved by decreasing the surplus population,” based on the theories of Thomas Malthus. […]

[…] According to Christian Voice, a ministry that analyzes current events and acts on Scriptural instructions for “a better way, God’s way,” the 1912 event promoted the “notion that economics can be improved by decreasing the surplus population,” based on the theories of Thomas Malthus. […]

[…] According to Christian Voice, a ministry that analyzes current events and acts on Scriptural instructions for “a better way, God’s way,” the 1912 event promoted the “notion that economics can be improved by decreasing the surplus population,” based on the theories of Thomas Malthus. […]

[…] According to Christian Voice, a ministry that analyzes current events and acts on Scriptural instructions for “a better way, God’s way,” the 1912 event promoted the “notion that economics can be improved by decreasing the surplus population,” based on the theories of Thomas Malthus. […]

[…] According to Christian Voice, a ministry that analyzes current events and acts on Scriptural instructions for “a better way, God’s way,” the 1912 event promoted the “notion that economics can be improved by decreasing the surplus population,” based on the theories of Thomas Malthus. […]

[…] According to Christian Voice, a ministry that analyzes current events and acts on Scriptural instructions for “a better way, God’s way,” the 1912 event promoted the “notion that economics can be improved by decreasing the surplus population,” based on the theories of Thomas Malthus. […]

[…] According to Christian Voice, a ministry that analyzes current events and acts on Scriptural instructions for “a better way, God’s way,” the 1912 event promoted the “notion that economics can be improved by decreasing the surplus population,” based on the theories of Thomas Malthus. […]

[…] According to Christian Voice, a ministry that analyzes current events and acts on Scriptural instructions for “a better way, God’s way,” the 1912 event promoted the “notion that economics can be improved by decreasing the surplus population,” based on the theories of Thomas Malthus. […]

[…] Apart from Gates, Soros, Rockefeller, Ford and Carnegie are key players developing the doctrine of one-world government throughout the world, and spreading the immorality of abortion and sodomy mainly in Africa and Asia. Warren Buffet’s donation of $1.52 billion to the Gates Foundation earlier this year made it the world’s biggest donating foundation, outstripping both Ford and Rockefeller. Warren Buffett is in favour of higher taxes and big government and he is pro-abortion, just like Bill and Melinda Gates. […]

[…] According to Christian Voice, a ministry that analyzes current events and acts on Scriptural instructions for “a better way, God’s way,” the 1912 event promoted the “notion that economics can be improved by decreasing the surplus population,” based on the theories of Thomas Malthus. […]

[…] According to Christian Voice, a ministry that analyzes current events and acts on Scriptural instructions for “a better way, God’s way,” the 1912 event promoted the “notion that economics can be improved by decreasing the surplus population,” based on the theories of Thomas Malthus. […]